> But the original repository has almost 4,000 stars, and surely, 4,000 developers can’t be wrong?

This is such a negative messaging!

Let's check star history: https://www.star-history.com/#forrestchang/andrej-karpathy-s...

1. Between Jan 27th and Feb 3rd stars grew quickly to 3K, project was released at that time.

2. People star it to be on top of NEW changes, people wanted to learn more about what's coming - but it didn't come. Doesn't mean people are dumb.

3. If OP synthesized the Markdown into a single line: "Think before coding" - why did he went through this VS Code extension publishing? Why can't they just share learnings and tell the world, "Add 'Think before coding' before your prompt and Please try for yourself!"

PS: no I haven't starred this project, I didn't know about it. But I disagree with the authors "assumptions" about stars and correlating it to some kind of insight revelation

I just packaged the extension for the fun of it! And I do want people to try for themselves, that is the point. About people that are not dumb; surely many people are not dumb; many people are very smart indeed. But that does not prove there are no dumb or gullible people!

thanks for responding and sharing your perspective.

What I would say, you could have omitted some negativity or judgement from your post about 4k devs starring something because it looks simple, because they might have different intentions for starring.

Here is another great example of 65K "not wrong" developers: https://github.com/kelseyhightower/nocode - there is no code, long before AI was a trend, released 9 years ago, but got 65K stars! Doesn't mean devs "not wrong", it means people are curious and saving things "just in case" to showcase somewhere

Nocode is obviously a banter repo and people starred it because made them laugh.

I wonder if someone could explore creating a standalone product out of that markdown, just for the fun of it.

Perhaps a cool wall art sticker? "In this house we don't assume. We don't hide confusion. We surface tradeoffs."

Let's start a company and raise money from investors!!

Unfair competition.

Should western models go through similar regulatory question bank? For example about Epstein, Israel's actions in Gaza, TikTok blocking ICE related content and so on?

As I promised earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46781777

"I will save this for the future, when people complain about Chinese open models and tell me: But this Chinese LLM doesn't respond to question about Tianmen square."

Please stop using Tianmen question as an example to evaluate the company or their models: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46779809

Neither should be censoring objective reality.

Why defend it on either side?

> Neither should be censoring objective reality.

100% agree!

But Chinese model releases are treated unfairly all the time when they release new model, as if Tianmen response indicates that we can use the model for coding tasks.

We should understand their situation and don't judge for obvious political issue. Its easy to judge people working hard over there, because they are confirming to the political situation and don't want to kill their company.

That's just whataboutism. Why shouldn't people talk about the various ideological stances embedded in different LLMs?

Why do we hear censorship concerns only when it comes Chinese models? Why don't we hear similar stances when Claude or OpenAI releases models?

We either set the bar and judge both, or don't complain about censorship

I think more people should spend time talking about this with American models, yeah. If you're interested in that then maybe that can be you. It doesn't have to be the same exact people talking about everything, that's the nice thing about forums. Find your own topic that American models consistently lie or freeze on that Chinese models don't and post about it.

I don't want to criticise models for things they're not being trained on or constraints companies have. None of the companies said our models don't hallucinate and we always have right facts.

For example,

* I am not expecting Gemini 3 Flash to cure cancer and constantly criticising them for that

* Or I am not expecting Mistral to outcompete OpenAI/Claude on their each release, because talent density and capital is obviously on a different level on OpenAI side

* Or I am not expecting GPT 5.3 saying anytime soon: Yes, Israel committed genocide and politicians covered it up

We should set expectations properly and don't complain about Tianmen every time when Chinese companies are releasing their models and we should learn to appreciate them doing it and creating very good competition and they are very hard working people.

I think most people feel differently about an emergent failure in a model vs one that's been deliberately engineered in for ideological reasons.

It's not like Chinese models just happen to refuse to talk about the topic, it trips guardrails that have been intentionally placed there, just as much as Claude has guardrails against telling you how to make sarin gas.

eg ChatGPT used to have an issue where it steadfastly refused to make any "political" judgments, which led it to genocide denial or minimization- "could genocide be justifiable" to which sometimes it would refuse to say "no." Maybe it still does this, I haven't checked, but it seemed very clearly a product of being strongly biased against being "political", which is itself an ideology and worth talking about.

not allowing distillation should be illegal :)

One can create 1000s of topic specific AI generated content websites, as a disclaimer each post should include prompt and used model.

Others can "accidentally" crawl those websites and include in their training/fine-tuning.

our laptops, devices, phones, equipments, home stuff are all powered by Chinese companies.

It wouldn't surprise me if at some point in the future my local "Alexa" assistant will be fully powered by local Chinese OSS models with Chinese GPUs and RAM.

> On day 13, we were told pricing had doubled and the original quote wouldn't be honored.

That's because, at the moment they're dictating the market conditions not others. This also happens with monopolies with no regulation (not saying these companies should be regulated), it's just a side effect of their position, even if people do not want to make these changes last minute.

Can someone please explain what is this?

I am already overloaded with information (generated by AI and humans) on my day to day job, why do I need this additional context, unless company I work for just wants to spend more money to store more slop?

How is it different than reversing it, given a PR -> generate prompt based on business context relevant to the repo or mentioned issues -> preserve it as part of PR description

I barely look at git commit history, why should I look for even higher cardinality data, in this case: WTF, are you doing, idiot, I said don't change the logic to make tests pass, I said properly write tests!

2nd point resonates with me, how come he wants to cover expenses, while being connected to Israeli PM and Epstein is connected to Israel through Ehud Barak.

Isn't he going to ask for a "favor"?

Barak and bibi are political enemies (or at least we're when Barack was a relevant political figure) and besides that I haven't seen anything suggesting that his connection with bibi is more than the one meeting that was publicized.

Bryan Cantrill

> For most of us, it’s writing the correct code.

I am not sure about this statement, aren't we always cutting the corners to make things ~95% correct at scale to meet deadlines with our staffing/constraints?

Most of us, who doesnt work on Linux kernel, space shuttles, and near realtime OSes, we were writing good enough code to meet business requirements

My point is that coming up with the business requirements was always the hard part (unless you’re writing a scheduler)